Kane & Lynch 2 Screens and Demo Information: Because We Love You

DualShockers writes, "Let’s get something out the way real quick, people. The first Kane & Lynch felt like we were forced to watch two adults with down-syndrome knife fight – it just didn’t seem right. It was an abortion from the womb of atrocity, and it left many bad tastes in our mouths. But that was the past, and that monstrosity is nothing but a dying memory as we continue to push forward with our gaming...."

Am I the only one who thinks Kane & Lynch is an awful game franchise? Why is IO Interactive wasting their time on this? I'm not denying that part 2 has come a long way but when I compare it to other games in the genre I just wonder what's the point?

Havent played the first. So I'm not sure what is awful about it. I mean Manhunt is sickening for some people but I still loved both iterations.

I like how this game is 60fps with some nice visuals to boot (sub hd res looks like not making a negative effect somehow). If the story is solid, I'm sold. I'd wait for the PS3 demo and a couple of reviews.

I actually coughed up the $60 for this game. It seemed good at first until I actually took notice of the game's visuals, clunky controls, and disgusting gameplay. I remember Eidos actually promoting this game as if it were the most amazing thing since HPV shots.

Personally, I might give this game shot just to see whether or not it redeems itself. A couple of people have said positive things about it during E3 - so I might just rent this and pray for the best. I've learned my lesson in spending $60 on over-hyped games.

be careful , the press is often always positive , till suddenly at the last minute , they discover that a game they spend plenty of time with , between previews and various conferences , isnt that good .

Just look at APB , why give it such overwhelmingly positive opinions at first , if you were going to kill it for it's already detectable shortcomings ?

hated the first game but more than that i hated the characters so there is no chance i will be buying this. I amazed that it even got the green light for a sequel based off the reception that the first game got.

it's really fun, Ive played through it on every difficulty and spent alot of time getting my ass kicked online.......looking forward to the finished product and I think they learned from their mistakes on the first game.

it was a hard mature storyline with interesting characters and bleak scenarios. as far as the graphics go i played it on pc and maxed out it was a very good looking game right in line with blood money and other IO games. the only complaint i have is that the cover system didn't always work to your advantage, but in the end the same problems arise in any game with a dynamic cover system, gta4 and red dead sometimes get the cover wrong, but i can overlook that if the overall story and gameplay is good. the co op was amazing too, playing as lynch when you'd have one of your withdrawls and trip out only to find you executed a room of hostages...priceless. dog days looks to be the fruition of gritty hollywood movies/shootouts, and AAA quality IO interactive. seeing how this game looks only increases my appetite for hitman 5.

all i had to do is look at your profile picture to see you'd rather be playing as sack boy collecting items. i'll be enjoying having street shoot outs with revolvers and spas 12's in co op mode and arcade mode

I thought the first game was awesome. The characters were awesome because they were real, they weren't some mythical hollywood saints or anything. The dialog was great, the characters were great, and controls were FINE except for the lack of a button to snap to cover, and the graphics were the same as any other current-gen game. Everyone was just a buncha bandwagoners who saw Jeff's review and got pissed cuz he got fired over the game.

Regardless, thanks to justice the game sold a few million copies which is why it's getting a sequel and a movie. So basically anyone who doesn't share my opinion can go suck it.

You sound pretty pissed off at the fact that people didn't like the game. They were real? Yea, okay. And so is John McClane from the Die Hard series. I agree that the story was pretty good, but to say that the characters were awesome because they were "real" is pretty silly. The characters were awesome because they were badass dudes. They killed people who got in there way, and had psychological issues that gave them the "I don't five a f---" attitude.

No one was jumping on bandwagons when they said that the game wasn't as good as they'd hoped. Is the game as bad, let's say, X-Blades? Hell no. But let's not pretend that it's the holy grail of third-person action games either. The game's controls were horrible, the graphics go on-par with last gen, and the multiplayer suffered (which is why the majority of people bought the game). You, sir, are naive.

There was no "Die Hard"-type shit in the entire game. They weren't jumping outta friggin' helicopters and doing slow-mo scenes where they destroy everything on the screen. They were "real" because they acted like real people with ISSUES. Kane didn't really have any psychological issues other than his obsession with getting his life back together, and the chances of that happening get shot down almost completely half-way through the game. It's at the end where the supreme climax happens, and that's one reason why I want the sequel so much, to see how Kane dealt with that. Lynch needs to be on the pills to even stay remotely sane - he's a paranoid schizo-wife killer. It's beautiful.

I don't have a problem with people who said they didn't like the game and actually laid out good reasons as to why they didn't. It's impossible for everyone to agree on everything. Those commoners who said "Zomg that game was trash yo!" and talk about how bad the controls or gameplay was, yet go on to praise shit like CoD all day (because all they know how to do is run around holding down the R1 button all day, spraying their balls off) were bandwagoners because it's obvious they never even played the damn game, or played two seconds of it without even knowing what the hell was going on.

You're telling me *I'M* naive yet you think somehow your shitty opinion is worth anything? The multiplayer was fucking new and fresh, and was fun. Maybe if you did play it you just hated it because you got mopped up on it. The graphics were nice, nothing horrifically special but if you think they looked like last gen then you never even picked up a PS2 or Xbox controller in your life. The controls were good to me, but I actually have talent and know how to play a game without autoaim.

Get outta here and go kick some rocks. K&L2 is gonna rock just as hard as the first one did, actually moreso because of the co-op. I'll let you get back to Call of Duty 14.

Real issues NarooN? You want to experience characters with real issues, play Xenogears, which revolves around a character suffering from a psychological disorder and trying to find who he is. There are many games out there that instill a sense of realism with their protagonists. It doesn't mean that the games themselves were great because of it. There's much more to a game than a character's personality.

Bullet Points to counteract your Hulk anger:

- God of War 2 had better graphics. What made it different? K&L had higher resolution. Ooooh

- Not a huge fan of the CoD multiplayer because of how insanely cheesy it is.

- New and Fresh multiplayer? In what sense?

Again, you seem pretty offended. You might want to seek counseling and tend to that anger issue you have because people think the first game sucked (and it did). But, to each his own.